Sorry, I'll try to pay closer attention to my future word choices so you won't be confused when interacting with someone who uses vocabulary that's not on a 4th grade reading level.
Again, feel free to keep on ignoring everything that I've said. No part of my argument has relied on the "regurgitation of academic theories". In fact, if you'd actually critically read what I've written, you'd understand that a large part of my criticism was the complaint that the opposing side has acted as if there
are scientific theories to back up what they're saying, when in reality, there aren't any.
To actually answer the question that @
dawgshow had:
The scientific part of this argument is relevant to a discussion about morality due to the fact that people were rationalizing the immorality of twerking through comments that argued that twerking is inherently sexual. In reality, there's a dearth of scientific evidence to support the idea that the rear-end is any more
biologically sexual than are hips, legs, breasts, etc.
As I've said again and again, I'm not trying to institute a mandatory twerking policy in every gym across the nation in order to better appreciate the arts.
All that I have been trying to explain is that twerking, just like virtually every other issue on the planet, is not a simple, black-and-white issue. I fail to understand why it's so controversial to acknowledge that the gray area exists.
